Universalism + Free Will = One Very Strange Bird

[LLC]

Romans 13-15 For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the DOERS of the law will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, BY NATURE do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thought accusing or else excusing them.

It is by the grace of God that He came to give us His word. We can choose to believe it and thus follow it, or we can choose to disregard it and continue on our own path which leads to destruction. There are many people who have gone to their graves, refusing to change in any way, shape or form. If we choose to sit around waiting for some sudden transformation to take place, we may be waiting for a long time because God already showed us the path that leads us to salvation. He said "Follow Me."

[davo]

Or as John 3 explains, like the wind that blows gently through tree leaves or rips trees from the ground when a hurricane blows.

Jeff… this is a CLASSIC example the embellishment of texts to claim a point: NOWHERE does “John 3 explains” what you said it does – you are going way beyond the text, clearly. All you have done is use poetic licence to make a point, and all points aside that’s fine, BUT that’s NOT what the text anywhere near says.

AND this is the problem that arises… it is too easy to embellish an argument with poetic licence, i.e., “interpretation” at the expense of factuality AND common sense.

(rhetorical question) Example: show me one Scripture that teaches “Sunday School” – “Sunday School” appears nowhere in the bible. Does that make such null and void? – it’s become part of how “we do” evangelical religion etc.

[Paidion]

Can you then show me one Scripture that teaches that man has the ability to love God without the Holy Spirit first changing his nature?

No. Can you show me one that teaches that man DOES NOT have that ability? I think the burden of proof lies with you who are making this claim.

James tells his readers to submit to God, draw near to God, and to humble themselves before God, and does not imply in any of those instructions that the Holy Spirit must first change their nature:

Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. (4:7)
Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. (4:8)
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up. (4:10)

In these verses he also indicates that his readers can "resist the devil, cleanse their hands (of wrong doing), and purify their hearts so as to be single-minded. He doesn't add that in order to do so, the Holy Spirit must first change their natures.

Then he makes this amazing statement:

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (1:27)

He seems to say that one can visit orphans and widows in their affliction and keep oneself unspotted from the world through his own choice. Again he doesn't say a word about this being impossible unless the Holy Spirit first changes his nature.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

I run a couple of LinkedIn groups for writers and copywriters. Once a member - perhaps jokingly - said copywriters only work for ad agencies. That would defy common sense, as copywriters work for in-house marketing departments, PR firms, freelance (i.e. which many ad agencies hire as contractors), etc. And folks actually tried to argue against his statement. I just had this to say to him: Your statement is not self-evident. And that should put the matter to rest and place the burden on him to prove his claim.

[pilgrim]

Can you then show me one Scripture that teaches that man has the ability to love God without the Holy Spirit first changing his nature? I understand the human logic and reasoning above, but can you provide a Scripture?

I think it is sufficient to provide a scripture which clearly states that we have a choice to serve God or not.
Joshua 24v15 "Choose you this day whom you will serve".
The text could not be more clear in stating that those people had a freewill decision to serve God (which Christ states is to love) or not to serve God.

In a sense however, this is irrelevant. The thread, and title of the thread was surely not to argue for or against determinism (was it?) but rather was a proclamation/suggestion that universalism and freewill are incompatible bedfellows. Eaglesway has eloquently and respectfully pointed out that they are not incompatible beliefs. What fascinates me is why there seems to be a need to imagine that the God of one camp, rather than the other, is more gracious, or more sovereign, or more loving or whatever.

[Eaglesway]

My posts to u so far hav nothing to do with whether a person can make a decision for God without a changed nature.

I simply posted that your characterization of universalists who believe in free will was simplistic and incomplete to the point of indicating that you may not understand the paradigm of the view you oppose.

I have only clearly stated that man has been given a stewardship of choice by God.

But in response to your question, Romans 2 speaks of those who, never having had the law, became through obedience, a law unto themselves- their conscience accusing or excusing them on the day God judges the secrets of mens hearts thru Jesus Christ.

Paul said to Timothy.... The foundation of God stands sure..inscribed with these words...the Lord knows those who r His and let evryone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.

Perhaps the Samaritan man in the parable had a changed nature, but Jesus wasnt highlighting that in the story. He was showing how the divine nature moves outside of religious boxes, like those of the Pharisee and the Levite.

The Samaritan man made a choice that showed he was a good steward of the gifts he had been given, and was a friend of God. The Pharisee and the Levite were poor stewards.

If anyone is in Christ Jesus they are a new creation. I believe in the new nature. We begin in it as babes....carnal. We grow in grace thru trials and life lessons where we are taught good stewardship...often by the conseqences of bad stewardship. All thru our lives God is bringing us into union with Him for the purpose of fellowship in the work of redeeming the creation from chaos.

I think that training requires a measure of free will, and so does friendship.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

This is the position I take - as a hopeful universalist. It's also a definition from a philosopher professor

But in Does Hopeful Universalism Sacrifice Divine Goodness?, the last term was defined like this:

So what is hopeful universalism? Roughly, at least as I understand it, it's the view that while God cannot guarantee the salvation of all, there is good reason to hope that God will nevertheless succeed in saving all. Hopeful universalists thus live in the hope that all will be saved, trusting in God's resourcefulness to achieve this best-of-all-possible outcomes--but they acknowledge that there can be no guarantee of universal salvation, because they believe that our ultimate destiny depends on free choices over which God cannot exert sovereign control. If (as they hope) all are saved, it is a contingent fact--one achieved because God's resourceful persistence paid off, not because it was necessary or inescapable.

[[email protected]]

Am I in trouble with you for proclaiming that one must be born from above, regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to begin the Christian life?

Of course we have a stewardship of choice, in that we are not robots. Certainly we make decisions and are accountable for our decisions. I do not dispute that. However, can a person freely choose to receive Christ and forgiveness and obey Christ of his own 'free will' without the transforming help of the Holy Spirit? Another way of saying this is, my confession that the reason I am a believer and a Christian and someone else is not is because the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and raised me from spiritual death to life, whereas God has not yet opened the eyes of the unbelieving.

Those above disagreeing with this understanding above have quoted Romans 2:12-15 in defense that man does have free will. Does the passage go that far? The main point of that passage is that we are all sinners whether with or without the law, because even those without the law are both defended and accused by their conscience. In context Romans 2:4, already mentioned, does explicitly say that to neglect that it is God that changes hearts is in fact to show contempt for grace. A wrong attitude and understanding here will cause us to be judgmental towards others rather than recognizing that each of us only stands or falls according to God's grace. That is one reason why this is a very important point. I think I touched on that earlier in this post, that a right understanding will help Christians to be more humble in evangelism and passionate in prayer.

Other passages are mentioned above such as Timothy, 'departing from iniquity', the good Samaritan, Joshua 24:15, 'choose this day', James, 'submit to God'... However, one cannot use passages of this type, or examples of the Good Samaritan's obedience to prove that natural man has a will with the freedom and ability to obey the whole law. And according to the argument of Romans 1-3 if someone cannot chose to obey the whole law, they are instead guilty of breaking the whole law. Just because God gives a command does not mean that natural man has the ability, the free will to comply. In fact according to Romans 5:20 the purpose of the law was not reform mankind and show us that we could obey, but in fact to show us that we cannot obey because we are sinners by nature. Sure some people obey certain commands, but no one has ever used their 'free will' to chose to perfectly satisfy the commands of God. Why not? Because our sinful nature is not free to do so. I do appreciate the Scripture references and would be glad to consider others. However, as you've already figured out, I do not think there is one. Someone above also agreed that there are no Scriptures that say man has 'free will'.

However, there are many Scriptures that do explicitly and didactically teach that we do not have 'free will' and are in fact powerless without God's help. Jesus himself said, 'apart from me you can do nothing.' Several have said the burden of proof is on me. I did quote Scriptures above, but I am guessing we each understand these differently. So there may be little useful point to further hair-raising argument in this post. However, to be willing to carry the burden of proof a bit further, Jeremiah 13:23 is often used to defend the necessity of God's transforming power. I've already mentioned 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 positively highlights that God has revealed God's wisdom to us, those chosen for faith, through his Spirit. Romans 11:6-10 negatively highlights that God gave others hard hearts and a spirit of stupor. My ebook at http://www.dgjc.org/optimism also highlights the specific words of Romans 11:32, "For God has bound all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all." Someone that is 'bound' is certainly not 'free'.

I do apologize for my extension of Jesus metaphor of the Spirit as wind... if an apology is needed. However, the point I was making is on target with the Scripture, that is to enter the kingdom one must be born of the Spirit, from above. The Holy Spirit and only the Holy Spirit can effect the change of heart needed to transcend the natural realm and enter the supernatural realm. Nicodemus came to Christ fearfully at night as a religious Jew with questions for Jesus. Jesus punches his hypocrisy right in the eyes, though of course Nicodemus was already blind to the truth. Jesus amazes him with the truth that Spiritual life has nothing to do with Nicodemus religious' system. Instead the Holy Spirit has the authority and free will to blow where he wishes, bringing the birth and transformation of the spirit to anyone he chooses, even the Samaritans and gentiles whom the Jews despised. Spiritual life is not dependent upon human will, John 1:11-13, but the will of God.

One last note, it was objected that this discussion is off topic because the focus on the post title is that 'free will' is incompatible with universalism. Understandably the conversation drifted into whether 'free will' exists or not. So back on topic, in addition to my understanding that 'free will' is not Biblically defensible, consider two points in answer to this concern. First I believe that holding to 'free will' as a universalist undermines the reason for the confidence we can have that God will finally save all mankind. The reasons I am confident that the salvation of all mankind is guaranteed is because the legal justification of sinful man has already happened apart from our will at the cross. Furthermore, even though unbelieving mankind is presently running from God in rebellion, unwilling to submit, though already forgiven at the cross, the determination and superior resources of Christ will overtake every last rebel converting them into his son or daughter. God's determination to make us willing will defeat the unwillingness of our sinful nature. Most Arminians do not believe in the salvation of all mankind because they believe most of mankind will not use their 'free will' to chose Christ. Well if the choice was left up to mankind, then no one would be saved at all, because unregenerate man is unwilling by his very nature! However, instead, because of the gracious choice of Christ, all mankind will be saved. Secondly, I have argued above that holding to 'free will' neglects to give God the glory and praise for his grace that has and will save all. Man's choice will not be praised in glory, but instead each of us will praise Christ that he pursued us with his love until his will prevailed over ours, changing what we were powerless to change ourselves.

Well I think you guys understand me well enough and yet likely still disagree so I probably need to discipline myself to leave the argument. God bless. Pray for me and I'll be praying for you.

[Eaglesway]

You are not in trouble with me at all. I am just sharing an opinion. You seem to think we are discussing being born from above now, as if I dont believe in that, but that was never in my re-posts to your posts, so I dont get it.

I am not sure where you are getting these presuppositions.- about what I dont believe.... I think my only disagreement with you has been about nuances of sovereignty vs. free will.

I just thought your OP communicated an inaccurate view of a free will universalist perspective. Are you now trying to say anyone who believes in free will does not believe in being born again?

My responses were just towards the strange bird analogy, since I am one

I believe in being born from above, by the incorruptible seed of the word of God- I do not believe that that was availavble in the OT in the way it is now thru Christ crucified- yet people did serve God, walk in righteousness, walk in faith......

I am not really interested in getting into a comprehensive debate on this, but I have some honest questions for you. Being born from above- made new in Christ, is a New Testament experience. Were there no righteous in the OT?. Are you saying there was never any love among Jew or Gentile? No sacrifice ever made for another. No generous act such as that of the Samaritan man in Christ's parable?

That no one could ever make a choice for God before the "born again" experience was available?

Acts 10:1 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the people and prayed to God continually. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God".

What of this man who was a Gentile and did not know Jesus? Were his acts, acknowledged as they were by God, the result of a "born from above" experience- before he was born from above? Was he the only one ever to hav chosen good stewardship(love God, love thy neighbor) before Christ regenerated him into a son of God? The last one? Or have there been many, throughout the ages from the beginning, unnamed people in forgotten lands and times who, as Romans 1 explains, saw the divine nature and eternal power of God through the things He created and walked before Him in humility- as well as in a certain limited ignorance?

That is what Romans 1 & 2 are all about. Cornelius was a just man before God having only his conscience to answer to, not being a Jew, and as yet having no gospel of Jesus Christ.

The scripture seems to indicate that he was chosen because of his deeds for the honor of being the first Gentile house to receive the gospel.... the first Gentile house to be born from above.

[Eaglesway]

Also, in relation to the OP, I would like to see the post of the strange bird who would say that we can do anything without the help of the Holy Spirit. I have not heard one single free will disposed universalist say such a thing. Or who ever said anyone could use their will to obey the whole law? These things are not even in dispute.

I do think the Holy Spirit may be more available than you do, like the rain, falling on the just and the unjust alike- otherwise how could anyone love another, sacrifice for a child or a spouse, lay down their lives for a friend..... but in no way would I ever assert that man is sufficient to himself. i am just saying that God has allowed, even ordained, that man shares participation in the process from a "will" point of view, and the scriptures (imo) sustain that perspective. While my own views on the balance between sovereignty and man's will are to complex to compose in a couple of posts, I will say one last time that I seriously disagree that being of an "Arminian" or "Calvinistic"(for lack of better terms sorry) undermines the reason for an assurance of the salvation of all, since everyone agrees that God is in control of the ages and His plan- it is a matter of method that is held in disagreement- a disagreement with too many degrees of moderation to go into thoroughly here. I am assured that all will be saved because of the glory of Christ crucified. It will win all into love, gather all into Him- but of course, God planned it that way.

That is why Peter says that we are predestined according to the foreknowledge of God. No doubt its a great mystery . I would never presume to over simplify it.

[[email protected]]

>man shares participation in the process from a "will" point of view.

Certainly.

However, what is in dispute with the 'free will' question is the effective agency behind the process. Some in this forum are saying that the effective agency is the 'free will' of man, whereas I am saying it is the sovereign choice of God. God is the one who open's our eyes and brings us to faith. Here is a verse that makes the distinction, 1 Corinthians 4:7, "For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" The Biblical answer to Paul's question is that God himself makes the difference at every level, whether OT or NT believer or even the difference between a 'good' or bad unbeliever or the difference between Cornelius and his neighbors. Unless one confesses that it is God who has made the difference, then they are boasting in themselves rather than boasting in the Lord.

For most orthodox Arminians the expression 'free will' is the answer as to why they are saved and why most are eternally damned. They believe each individual's 'free will' choice made the difference. This is an offense to grace. That is why 'free will' universalists seem like a strange bird to me because we have already concluded that God's will has chosen to save all mankind independently of our will (though the Holy Spirit persuades each individual's will to receive the good news.) Now I am certainly not saying that those holding to 'free will' are not Christians. True Christians, followers of Christ can be right and wrong on numerous points and still be Christian, for no one is perfect. However, the Christian holding to their 'free will' choice as the reason that they are Christian is either misinformed or rejecting the birds and the bees of spiritual life.

[pilgrim]

For most orthodox Arminians the expression 'free will' is the answer as to why they are saved and why most are eternally damned. They believe each individual's 'free will' choice made the difference. This is an offense to grace.

To state that, for most orthodox Arminians, freewill is the answer as to why they are saved and others damned is an oversimplification to say the least but if I go along with that view, I still cannot understand your comment "That is an offense to grace". Firstly, let me say that I interpret your statement to mean "That is an offense to God in that it does a disservice of some sort to His grace".
Why does it? To my mind it is the Calvinist's perspective which does the disservice to God's grace by limiting it to a select few (or for the deterministic universalist, by rationing God's grace to a select few now and delaying His gift to a much later time for the others).
The Arminian position is that God's grace is more freely and expansively available to countless more people but some of these people use their freewill to reject His grace. Doesn't this latter view magnify the grace of God?
The only retort I can imagine is "Yes, but from the Calvinist's perspective, God's (very limited) grace is irresistible and therefore of greater substance". I really think this argument doesn't hold water, as I see it as a most gracious act that God should allow us to be 'wooed' by His Love into freely choosing to respond positively to His Love-gift of relationship with Him.
But I may have misunderstood your statement or may have missed another argument you have to persuade me that the Arminian's view of God's grace is a lesser one??

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

One of the commentators in Does Hopeful Universalism Sacrifice Divine Goodness? raised an interesting question. Let me pose it here:

How does universalism apply to the situation of Mother Theresa (MT) and someone like Osama Bin Laden (OSB)? If MT is much closer to the ethical goal of conforming her life to Jesus Christ than OSB, are you saying that while MT is much farther along in the healing and transformation process of a life in God, that God will continue to work with OSB indefinitely after death until he conforms to what a life in union with God is supposed to look like?

[[email protected]]

>I interpret your statement to mean "That is an offense to God in that it does a disservice of some sort to His grace".

Claiming that 'free will' made a distinction between you and another rather than grace is not really a disservice to God's grace, for ultimately nothing interrupts God's purposes, even our unbelief. But instead it is a dishonoring of God and a prideful boast toward our fellowman.

>Why does it?

A good question. First the Scriptures themselves specifically teach that attributing spiritual progress to anything but grace is contemptible in Romans 2:4 and boastful in 1 Corinthians 4:7. Second I also said earlier in this post that if we believe persuasion at the natural level of logic and argument is sufficient, then our evangelism will create victims rather than converts. We will neglect to pray asking God to provide the heart change that only he can provide. One might argue that we chose to pray because of our 'free will' choice to obey. However, Paul gives the glory for all his effort to God in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:10 and even our prayers as explained in Romans 8:26. Third, it is already admitted that there are no Scriptures that explicitly teach that man has a 'free will', but there are verses that teach that man must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to be alive to God. Since this is the case the question begs, why not humbly accept the Scriptures? Why the resistance? Fourth, if I claim that my 'free will' made the difference in my spiritual progress I have a boast before my fellowman, but if I acknowledge that grace made the difference I am God's servant to point others to the only hope for their healing, God himself. Further then God can answer for himself as to why he chooses to do this or that.

>To my mind it is the Calvinist's perspective which does the disservice to God's grace by limiting it to a select few

On that we totally agree.

>or for the deterministic universalist, by rationing God's grace to a select few now and delaying His gift to a much later time for the others.

Yes, that is a concern. I have already said I do not like the negative connotation of the word 'deterministic.' The word ruins the artistry of what God is building and designing. Yet I also ask with you, why did God bring me to faith at age 18, others earlier, and even others later? Or why do many die in unbelief and unrepentance and suffer Hades when God's grace could stem the tide? I do not like these facts either. However, it is what the Scriptures teach. So we could try to find an explanation that makes sense to human reason alone and helps us feel more comfortable, or we could give our lives to the Spirit's purposes and allow God to make his appeal through us as Paul did, 2 Corinthians 5:20 "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

The mistake many make who reject the sovereignty of God, is thinking of it as God sitting in heaven pulling switches and using words like 'deterministic' to describe his sovereign influence. This is a mistake that improperly characterizes the beautiful work of God's grace. God's sovereign grace is intimate and present and at work and when we obey his will, then it is certain that he is at work through us for the good.

[LLC]

If we are unable to respond to God's love of our own free will out of the love that is within our own hearts, what kind of love is that?

[pilgrim]

Very true LLC.

>>or for the deterministic universalist, by rationing God's grace to a select few now and delaying His gift to a much later time for the others.

Yes, that is a concern. I have already said I do not like the negative connotation of the word 'deterministic.'

A rose by any other name doth smell as sweet. Likewise, using any other word for 'deterministic' does not alter the concept. Yes, the concept you hold on to does have negative consequences and IMO diminishes the grace of God as I outlined in my last post.
I think there are too many caricatures and strawmen in this thread, possibly quite unintentionally. Nevertheless, with that, and a lack of real engagement with points clearly stated, I'll bow out wishing all God's blessings.

Eaglesway, you are not a 'strange bird'. You are a storehouse of information and wisdom. I am grateful for your presence on this forum.

[Paidion]

That is why 'free will' universalists seem like a strange bird to me because we have already concluded that God's will has chosen to save all mankind independently of our will (though the Holy Spirit persuades each individual's will to receive the good news.)

I don't think it is the case that "we have already concluded that God's will has chosen to save all mankind independently of our will." If it were God's will to do that, then why hasn't He done it instantaneously? My answer is that if He saved people apart from their will, he would have many continuing rebels in His presence throughout eternity. God never forces the will of anyone. God Himself has free will, and He created man in His image—also with free will.

Rather than forcing His will onto people, God has chosen to save each individual when that person of his own free will repents and submits to the Messiah's authority. Anyone who refuses to do that will not be saved until he submits. That is the reason it is taking so long, and will probably take many ages more before everyone has submitted. But God has patience. He will continue to work with everyone throughout the ages until all come to repentance and submission.

The restoration to unity must not be imagined as a sudden happening. Rather it is to be thought of as gradually effected by stages during the passing of countless ages. Little by little and individually the correction and purification will be accomplished. Some will lead the way and climb to the heights with swifter progress, others following right behind them; yet others will be far behind. Thus multitudes of individuals and countless orders will advance and reconcile themselves to God, who once were enemies; and so at length the last enemy will be reached...
(De Principiis, III.vi.6)

[Eaglesway]

>man shares participation in the process from a "will" point of view.

Certainly.

However, what is in dispute with the 'free will' question is the effective agency behind the process. Some in this forum are saying that the effective agency is the 'free will' of man, whereas I am saying it is the sovereign choice of God. God is the one who open's our eyes and brings us to faith. Here is a verse that makes the distinction, 1 Corinthians 4:7, "For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" The Biblical answer to Paul's question is that God himself makes the difference at every level, whether OT or NT believer or even the difference between a 'good' or bad unbeliever or the difference between Cornelius and his neighbors. Unless one confesses that it is God who has made the difference, then they are boasting in themselves rather than boasting in the Lord.

For most orthodox Arminians the expression 'free will' is the answer as to why they are saved and why most are eternally damned. They believe each individual's 'free will' choice made the difference. This is an offense to grace. That is why 'free will' universalists seem like a strange bird to me because we have already concluded that God's will has chosen to save all mankind independently of our will (though the Holy Spirit persuades each individual's will to receive the good news.) Now I am certainly not saying that those holding to 'free will' are not Christians. True Christians, followers of Christ can be right and wrong on numerous points and still be Christian, for no one is perfect. However, the Christian holding to their 'free will' choice as the reason that they are Christian is either misinformed or rejecting the birds and the bees of spiritual life.

Actually Jeff, I view the thing, in brief- as I said before, man's will is a bubble within the infinitely larger bubble of God's will, His plan, His allness. He creates the parametrers of man's will, as a stewardship that we call a life span, with which we are given great latitude by Him.... however, it was never my intention and still is not- to engage in ANOTHER huge discussion or debate over this issue.

If you go back over the posts(not saying you should jus saying if... ) you will note that I am only disagreeing with your oversimplified and inaccurate characterization of the free will universalist's perspective. it is clear you do not understand that viewpoint... not saying you should accept it.... just saying you should be willing to understand what a viewpoint is before you mischaracterize it. As I said, my views on the relationship between the will of God and the will of man are to complex to do in short form.... so i gave you some brief hints, which it doesnt really appear you read, or "got" and this oversimplification will be the weakness of your book, for many, because not all will see it as you do.... but it will read well with those who see things just like you do. I prefer to share universalism as transcending some of the more common polarizations of orthodox doctrines.... but that is just my perspective on that.

Arminians believe man chooses hell. Calvinists believe God chooses men for hell. I am neither. I am a universalist. I believe God made a plan where all will eventually submit willingly to the Lordship of Jesus, embracing the love of God. He is the agency, but we are agents.

Just as you dislike the word deterministic, as I said before, I dislike the term "free will"- it is not free from God, it is free within the field of God's choosing, in the cosmos of time and space... and subject in its "freedom" to certain universal laws God set in place as the foundations of creation. Romans 8 tells us how God subjected the creation to futility with a forward view to the setting free of the whole creation into the freedom that we, as children of God have been born into, which is love- "the glorious freedom of the children of God".

God has done all this, but His overiding purpose is to create "friends" and "sons" who commune with Him from a place of agreement because He Is Love. What a place to share from, the joy of fellowship, as mature children of God who have entered the autonomy of love.

This is why, in 1 Cor 15, it says all rule power and authority will be done away, because when God is all in all, all will be in love, and love does no ill, so there will be no need for rule- there will only be joy like a river of ten thousands of ten thousands praising God.... His voice being like the rushing of many waters.

For freedom Christ has set you free. The one who the Son sets free will be free indeed. You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Our mother is the new Jerusalem from above who is free. The wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound and you dont kno where it is coming from or where it is going....so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

The way of love produces freedom, "it is written in the volume of the book of me, 'I come to do Your will O God."

This "Perfect law of liberty" is given by God and grows in us by grace as we walk with Him.

Really, I am not pitting anything against anything. Certainly not free will against God's sovereignty. They are two sides of one coin. God's sovereignty is setting us free, as His grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and walk in the Spirit.

[[email protected]]

Yes I would like to agree with all of you as much as possible. Most of the discussion, lengthy words aside, boils down to our understanding of the nature of the non-Christian and the Christian. Is the Holy Spirit the essential agent turning and moving us God-ward?

[DaveB]

Is the Holy Spirit the essential agent turning and moving us God-ward?

To fine-tune that question a bit more, could we put it this way:
1. Is the HS the necessary and sufficient agent in moving us God-ward?
OR
2. Is man's activity a necessary, but not sufficient agent in moving us God-ward?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Is the Holy Spirit the essential agent turning and moving us God-ward?

To fine-tune that question a bit more, could we put it this way:
1. Is the HS the necessary and sufficient agent in moving us God-ward?
OR
2. Is man's activity a necessary, but not sufficient agent in moving us God-ward?

Isn't it a combination of both? But in what proportion? It's like Yosemite Sam and the dragon. He needed to get the dragon (spiritual inspiration in the form of scripture, church attendance, moral works, etc.) into the room. And with the right combination of elements, the Holy Spirit (TNT) took him to the moon (i.e. God)

[Eaglesway]

Is the Holy Spirit the essential agent turning and moving us God-ward?

To fine-tune that question a bit more, could we put it this way:
1. Is the HS the necessary and sufficient agent in moving us God-ward?
OR
2. Is man's activity a necessary, but not sufficient agent in moving us God-ward?

I reallylike these two questions together. If viewed as two aspects of one truth, you can see how the second question is an open conduit to the first.

Man's activity is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

"No man comes to me except the father draw Him"...."If I am lifetd up from the earth I will draw all men unto me".

In the reference to the serpent lifted up on a stick as Moses was instructed, the snake bite ws cured when the Israelites looked upon it. The snakebite itself, with its detremental effects motivated them to seek the offered release, and to look upon it as commanded..... but only the sufficiency of God provided their healing, deliverance, salvation. If they didnt look they were not healed. If they looked they were healed, but not by their own sufficiency.

Of course God set up the entire construct. This is a perfect(imo) view of how God works.

"Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone will open the door I will come in and sup with them."

Man opens the door. God sets up the circumstances that lead to the awakening to the knock of Christ.

"He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’(Acts 17:25-27)

All creation is set up to draw us to Him.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Ro 1:20,21)

Chaos is the method(the earth was without form and void-tohu and bohu- and the Spirit hovered over the waters). God speaking is the resolution(Let there be light...faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.) Grace is the always at ready willingness of God to supply the deliverance offered in timely fashion to those willing to receive.

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. (Eccl 3:11)

God has seen the end from the beginning, having set it all up in His perfect wisdom and love, in such a way that not one will be lost, but that all will someday see and choose to yield, submit to and embrace His love- revealed by the snake on the stick and healed by the revelation....Christ crucified.

When man goes to far in trying to explain the ways of God he runs into the wall of his own limitations, for His ways are higher than our ways. We typically align on one side or the other of the paradox within the paradigm and say, "If this is true that is false".....but it is not always the case. Apparent contradictions within the whole cloth of the truth are there on purpose, to draw us further in seeking resolution(not to set up camps short of the whole counsel of God).

Proper exegesis demands that we come up higher seeking the seam between the two views(to the extent they are both represented in scripture)- which the two questions do nicely in my opinion.

As I see it, God's word does not leave us sorting out opposing view points from scriptures that are saying different things in opposition, they all integrate at some point in a balanced understanding.....but that understanding may always have some fuzzy edges, so we dont get too proud, put God in a box, because HE prefers to be seen through a glass darkly at times.

The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one shepherd. Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.(Eccl 12:11,12)

33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

[LLC]

By observation of the world around us, we see that every relationship is cooperative in nature. God was the first to give us love. He created man and gave us life. He also created the earth and everything in it and gave it to us. These are gifts from God. In the beginning, God planted the tree of life (His word) in our hearts and minds. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a man-made tree. It is up us which one we pick and eat of. We bring God's word to life by living it, and in living it, the word brings our spirits to life. This is the best I can explain it. For me, it is just one of the mysteries of God. We know that the Holy Spirit works, but we just don't know how. It can drive a person nuts just thinking about it. This is why God has made it very simple for us. He showed us the way and said, "Follow Me".

[[email protected]]

John 8:31-36 might shed some light
===
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?” Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

[qaz]

Hmmm instead the point of grace is that God made a way to forgive what should have been damned. His absolute holiness cannot withstand the least blemish. We are responsible for our sin and in light of God's holiness ought to be damned because of it. Yet his amazing grace made the way to forgive sin through Christ. He removed our responsibility / penalty for our actions and substituted the responsibility of Christ. The boast of the Christian is not that I am no longer responsible, but a boast and praise that Christ accomplished what we could could not accomplish. He freely willed our salvation.

To me, it doesn't make sense that God would punish people for their sins after he removed their (our) responsibility. If sinners aren't responsible for their sins, then why punish them? The idea of an inculpable sinner seems totally incoherent.

Am I in trouble with you for proclaiming that one must be born from above, regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to begin the Christian life?

Of course we have a stewardship of choice, in that we are not robots. Certainly we make decisions and are accountable for our decisions. I do not dispute that. However, can a person freely choose to receive Christ and forgiveness and obey Christ of his own 'free will' without the transforming help of the Holy Spirit? Another way of saying this is, my confession that the reason I am a believer and a Christian and someone else is not is because the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and raised me from spiritual death to life, whereas God has not yet opened the eyes of the unbelieving.

Those above disagreeing with this understanding above have quoted Romans 2:12-15 in defense that man does have free will. Does the passage go that far? The main point of that passage is that we are all sinners whether with or without the law, because even those without the law are both defended and accused by their conscience. In context Romans 2:4, already mentioned, does explicitly say that to neglect that it is God that changes hearts is in fact to show contempt for grace. A wrong attitude and understanding here will cause us to be judgmental towards others rather than recognizing that each of us only stands or falls according to God's grace. That is one reason why this is a very important point. I think I touched on that earlier in this post, that a right understanding will help Christians to be more humble in evangelism and passionate in prayer.

Other passages are mentioned above such as Timothy, 'departing from iniquity', the good Samaritan, Joshua 24:15, 'choose this day', James, 'submit to God'... However, one cannot use passages of this type, or examples of the Good Samaritan's obedience to prove that natural man has a will with the freedom and ability to obey the whole law. And according to the argument of Romans 1-3 if someone cannot chose to obey the whole law, they are instead guilty of breaking the whole law. Just because God gives a command does not mean that natural man has the ability, the free will to comply. In fact according to Romans 5:20 the purpose of the law was not reform mankind and show us that we could obey, but in fact to show us that we cannot obey because we are sinners by nature. Sure some people obey certain commands, but no one has ever used their 'free will' to chose to perfectly satisfy the commands of God. Why not? Because our sinful nature is not free to do so. I do appreciate the Scripture references and would be glad to consider others. However, as you've already figured out, I do not think there is one. Someone above also agreed that there are no Scriptures that say man has 'free will'.

However, there are many Scriptures that do explicitly and didactically teach that we do not have 'free will' and are in fact powerless without God's help. Jesus himself said, 'apart from me you can do nothing.' Several have said the burden of proof is on me. I did quote Scriptures above, but I am guessing we each understand these differently. So there may be little useful point to further hair-raising argument in this post. However, to be willing to carry the burden of proof a bit further, Jeremiah 13:23 is often used to defend the necessity of God's transforming power. I've already mentioned 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 positively highlights that God has revealed God's wisdom to us, those chosen for faith, through his Spirit. Romans 11:6-10 negatively highlights that God gave others hard hearts and a spirit of stupor. My ebook at http://www.dgjc.org/optimism also highlights the specific words of Romans 11:32, "For God has bound all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all." Someone that is 'bound' is certainly not 'free'.

I do apologize for my extension of Jesus metaphor of the Spirit as wind... if an apology is needed. However, the point I was making is on target with the Scripture, that is to enter the kingdom one must be born of the Spirit, from above. The Holy Spirit and only the Holy Spirit can effect the change of heart needed to transcend the natural realm and enter the supernatural realm. Nicodemus came to Christ fearfully at night as a religious Jew with questions for Jesus. Jesus punches his hypocrisy right in the eyes, though of course Nicodemus was already blind to the truth. Jesus amazes him with the truth that Spiritual life has nothing to do with Nicodemus religious' system. Instead the Holy Spirit has the authority and free will to blow where he wishes, bringing the birth and transformation of the spirit to anyone he chooses, even the Samaritans and gentiles whom the Jews despised. Spiritual life is not dependent upon human will, John 1:11-13, but the will of God.

I don't think you can have it both way. That is, you can't hold that we're "accountable for our decisions", and also hold that those who sin are sinning because God hasn't made them capable of living justly i.e. God hasn't made them capable of not sinning ("God has not yet opened the eyes of the unbelieving."). Is a murderer culpable or not? If for a person to live justly God must transform the person (and this isn't a matter of the person's choice i.e. free will), and God has chosen to not transform a person, then how can you blame the person for not living justly?

You made a sports analogy earlier in this thread. I'll offer what I think is a better one: in your paradigm (which is determinism), sinners are like people who can't dunk a basketball on a 10-foot hoop. It's not a matter of choice; some people simply lack the ability to dunk a basketball and some people simply lack the ability to live justly. Well, if the latter people lack the ability, then why should they be punished? If on the other hand they have the ability to live justly, they just have to choose to, then there is free will.

One last note, it was objected that this discussion is off topic because the focus on the post title is that 'free will' is incompatible with universalism. Understandably the conversation drifted into whether 'free will' exists or not. So back on topic, in addition to my understanding that 'free will' is not Biblically defensible, consider two points in answer to this concern. First I believe that holding to 'free will' as a universalist undermines the reason for the confidence we can have that God will finally save all mankind. The reasons I am confident that the salvation of all mankind is guaranteed is because the legal justification of sinful man has already happened apart from our will at the cross. Furthermore, even though unbelieving mankind is presently running from God in rebellion, unwilling to submit, though already forgiven at the cross, the determination and superior resources of Christ will overtake every last rebel converting them into his son or daughter. God's determination to make us willing will defeat the unwillingness of our sinful nature. Most Arminians do not believe in the salvation of all mankind because they believe most of mankind will not use their 'free will' to chose Christ. Well if the choice was left up to mankind, then no one would be saved at all, because unregenerate man is unwilling by his very nature! However, instead, because of the gracious choice of Christ, all mankind will be saved. Secondly, I have argued above that holding to 'free will' neglects to give God the glory and praise for his grace that has and will save all. Man's choice will not be praised in glory, but instead each of us will praise Christ that he pursued us with his love until his will prevailed over ours, changing what we were powerless to change ourselves.

IIRC from another thread you believe Satan and some other beings (fallen angels?) will suffer hopeless punishment. Why hopeless punishment for them but not humans? Is it because they have free will?

Do you believe every human goes straight to heaven upon death, or do you believe in post-mortem punishment for humans? If the latter, what's the point of the punishment? If people had no choice in the matter of whether or not to live justly, then what are they being punished for? And why punish them at all rather than suddenly transform them? I would say universalism + determinism = one very strange bird.

[qaz]

If God knew that they were going to eat from the tree, then they could not have refrained from eating from the tree, and THAT implies that they did not have free will.

I totally agree. Nothing that God knows has any effect on our freedom to choose. But IF God (or anyone else) knows that you are going to eat a pear tomorrow, then you are going to eat a pear tomorrow. Therefore it is now true that you will eat a pear tomorrow. If it is NOW true that you will eat a pear tomorrow, you cannot refrain from eating a pear tomorrow. For if you DO refrain from eating a pear tomorrow, then this contradicts the statement that it is NOW true that you will eat a pear tomorrow. Thus no one could NOW know that you will eat a pear tomorrow.

The same argument holds if it is assumed that someone knows that you WON'T eat a pear tomorrow. Thus the statement that you will eat a pear tomorrow is neither true nor false NOW. Thus no one can know whether or not you will eat a pear tomorrow. If the truth value of a statement is known NOW, then the statement must be either true or false NOW. If the statement is neither true nor false now, then there is nothing to know.

You already said in a previous post something similar to "My choice is not influenced by someone else's knowledge" and I fully agreed with you. I still fully agree. My argument in no way indicates that someone's knowledge influences choice. The point of my argument was to show that the choice of a free-will agent CANNOT BE KNOWN in advance. I did this by showing that if the choice IS known in advance, then it is not really a choice, and the agent does not have free will.

I claim that the statement "Dave will raise his hand at 2 P.M. on July 1, 2015." has no truth value. That is, the sentence in NOW neither true nor false. It will become true or false at 2 P.M. on July 1, 2015 when Dave makes his decision. Only statements which are either true or false, can be known to be true (or false). If it is neither true nor false, then there is nothing to know.

Indeed, in the study of logic, a "logical statement" is either true of false. I claim that sentences about the future are not "logical statements" though they may be written in statement form. Here are two examples:

1. "Jack will go to Winnipeg tomorrow." This sentence is written in statement form, but is not really a logical statement and so is neither true nor false. What the sentence actually means is "Jack intends to go to Winnipeg tomorrow," and of course THAT sentence IS a logical statement which is either true of false.

2. "The Winnipeg Jets will win the hockey game." Again this sentence is written in statement form, but is not really a logical statement and so is neither true nor false. What the sentence actually means is "I predict that the Winnipeg Jets will win the hockey game." And THAT sentence IS a logical statement which is either true of false.

If Peter's fall was predetermined, then Peter had no choice but to fall. Also the ideas that his fall was predetermined implies that God caused him to deny his Master. That makes God the author of sin. I have too high a regard for God's character to accept that. But to answer your question, no the sentence was not true the moment it was said. Jesus made a prediction. Jesus knew Peter's character; He knew Peter's impulsiveness; He knew Peter was likely to cave under pressure. But you ask, how could He predict that it would be three times? Matthew wrote his memoir of Christ many years after the event occurred. I suggest that Matthew knew Peter had denied Christ three times, and so he "remembered" that Jesus said he would deny Him three times. But Jesus may not have said "three times." Notice that Mark, who probably got his information from Peter, said, "And Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” (Mark 14:30). So how many times did the rooster crow before Peter denied Him? Once? Or twice? Either Matthew or Mark had to be mistaken. So it may be that they thought they remembered that our Lord said "deny me three times" when He may not have said so. Then why did both of them say that Jesus said "three times"? Again, I think they thought they remembered Him saying "three times" because Peter actually did deny Him three times.


I regard the sentence as true because God intends that it will happen, and so He will continue to work on everyone to influence them to be reconciled to Him. He will do whatever it takes to see that that happens. However, God doesn't directly cause each person to submit to the authority of Christ and become His disciple. Rather He influences each person and will continue to do so until they submit. Each person will of his own free will choose to submit or continue to rebel. But God will never give up on the rebels. He will provide love, discomfort, or whatever influence has its effect. He will do His very best for each individual until all repent and bow the knee.

I'm not sure free will precludes divine omniscience.

You say Jesus didn't know that Peter would deny him; he just knew "Peter's character" and made a prediction based on that. But what about prophesies in the Old Testament about people who didn't even exist yet?

[Eaglesway]

who are chosen 2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

There are places in the scripture where paradoxes resolve in some measure.

When someone comes to the understanding of the salvation of all, for instance, a whole bunch of verses that used to seem contradictroy become the whole cloth of the plan of God regarding judgment and mercy.

Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.


The resolution is always further in than we have yet been(my opinion).

So I am perfectly comfortable saying "I don't know" where the paradox resolves concerning free will and sovereign will, but ...

The resolution of the paradox is the true paradigm, to whatever extent the mystery is revealed, usually on a windy path somewhere a good ways beyond the entrance to the discussion where the two opposing views, in their polarization, become the pillars holding up the "entryway", neither of them alone presenting any legitimate destination or promise of a resolution of the conflict of ideas in each. Neither pole leading to "understanding" without the other.

I think 1 Peter 1:2 holds a wink at it tho.
I think there is a clue to it in 1 Peter 1:2

" chose according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"

The foreknowledge of God is an awesome thing. He could give someone(not saying he does) total freedom of will and still appear to control everything just because He forsaw everything and wrote down the road map to the destination and placed signs along the way. Allowing freedom does not have any reflection of omnipotence or omniciense, because God's will is certainly free and He is not bound by the limitations of our logic, which is insufficient. All powerful and all-knowing He can aloow whatever He wishes, or not allow whatever He wishes.... especially if the goal in all things is to produce a revelation and a relationship within the creation.

Like a father with a son who foresees the end of a path chosen and decides whether or not to intervene, whther or not the consequences are to severe to allow or whetehr it is a lesson ready to be learned, whether it is a test of stewardship and an opportunity to grow closer in love and relationship- or whether the son is about to hurt someone and in nedd of punidshment- etc.

In other words I think it is much more organic and personal than systematic theology conceives. You kno, every sparrow that falls, every hair on every hair, every prayer prayed, evry tear that falls, ...in Him we live and move and have our being..

I think God has set the broad strokes like a frame work that will not change and is set as an administration suitable to the fulness of times. i think the actions of men are stretching a skin over that framework and filling the insides of it towards a grand and glorious building, or like a loom weaving a tapestry, both orderly and controled in the weaving yet free and as yet unrevealed in the image it will present.

To me that's true in every life and true throughout all creation and time.

Time and cosmos the loom. (in the beginning the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep), the word provides the image,(let there be ligh, waters above separated from waters below, lights in the heavens and dry land appears), our lives provide the material from which the final image will be completed, and altho God sees it before it is rendered, I believe He will have the same satisfaction in its completion that an artist has when a sculpture or a painting is finished.

He is not the loom, He is not the mechanics of it, He is the artist, the craftsman and His vision transcends that and is centered in being and relationships andthe creation and realization of the joy of a process where spontaneous acts work according to the counsel of His will to reveal His kind intention, like a waterfall(deep calls unto deep)

Who has been the mind of the Lord and who has been His counselor, for From Him and thriough Him and To Him are all things to whom be the glory forever.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

I maen, I know most folks think it must be "either, or" but I think its a lot deeper than that, and "both", but like water flowing beyond the limits of logic and the mechanics one sees on the surface level of systematic theology.

[qaz]

Eaglesway, I think it has to be free will or determinism. Unless maybe God gives free will to some people but not to others?

[TurtleJoy]

I noticed that you're use the WEB World English Bible translation for your quotes. That makes me happy because WEB is an excellent translation. If there was a nice print version available, I'd pick one up in a heartbeat. They have a paperback version on amazon but I've heard the quality of the print, margins and binding isn't quite up to par.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

They have a paperback version on amazon but I've heard the quality of the print, margins and binding isn't quite up to par.

Maybe the seller on Amazon has a contract with a monastery bookbinding and printing service, that still lives in the middle ages

[TurtleJoy]

They have a paperback version on amazon but I've heard the quality of the print, margins and binding isn't quite up to par.

Maybe the seller on Amazon has a contract with a monastery bookbinding and printing service, that still lives in the middle ages

lol that's hilarious XD it looks like they used createspace to publish the paperback, which is amazon's print on demand service. It would be nice if they had a nice hardback pew bible version...I'd also settle for a nice plexisoft faux leather (like my 20 dollar KJV Hendrickson) Maybe one day

[[email protected]]

Here is another beautiful Scripture relevant to our discussion....

Isaiah 42:5-9

"Thus says God, the Lord,
who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people on it
and spirit to those who walk in it:
“I am the Lord; I have called you[b] in righteousness;
I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the people,
a light for the nations,
to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
I am the Lord; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them.”


For myself I am thankful that God is determined to save us. That is our great hope.

[Paidion]

Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them.”

The things that "spring forth" may be the things that God does. He can tell you what He is going to do before He does them.

[Eaglesway]

Eaglesway, I think it has to be free will or determinism. Unless maybe God gives free will to some people but not to others?

Thats the common perception. One or the other. but such a view, for me, does not satisfy the scriptures. If we base one on the scriptures, we must accept the other, but then, both cannot be true! or can they? Because if they are not both true then TOO MUCH OF SCRIPTURE IS A RIDICULOUS CONTRADICTION.

So,

I insist there is a higher paradigm, and its just too damned easy to argue around the terminus points of our finite minds, and so much satisfaction to be gained in the conflict- since all regard themselves as victors and understanders.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

So,I insist there is a higher paradigm, ...

Like this

[qaz]

Thats the common perception. One or the other. but such a view, for me, does not satisfy the scriptures. If we base one on the scriptures, we must accept the other, but then, both cannot be true! or can they? Because if they are not both true then TOO MUCH OF SCRIPTURE IS A RIDICULOUS CONTRADICTION.

So,

I insist there is a higher paradigm, and its just too damned easy to argue around the terminus points of our finite minds, and so much satisfaction to be gained in the conflict- since all regard themselves as victors and understanders.

What you're saying to me sounds like "there is a higher paradigm, in which a square circle is possible, and married bachelors do exist."

[[email protected]]

or that blind people can see without God opening their eyes.

[Eaglesway]

Thats the common perception. One or the other. but such a view, for me, does not satisfy the scriptures. If we base one on the scriptures, we must accept the other, but then, both cannot be true! or can they? Because if they are not both true then TOO MUCH OF SCRIPTURE IS A RIDICULOUS CONTRADICTION.

So,

I insist there is a higher paradigm, and its just too damned easy to argue around the terminus points of our finite minds, and so much satisfaction to be gained in the conflict- since all regard themselves as victors and understanders.

What you're saying to me sounds like "there is a higher paradigm, in which a square circle is possible, and married bachelors do exist."

Of course it sounds that way to you, but if you read my post again, without me listing all of them, it is clear that there are scriptures that seem to fit both views. Somewhere down the road, beyond the limited framework of the logic either side leans upon, there is perhaps, a resolution that will look like a square peg to a round hole to some. Sorta like Jesus was s suare peg to the round holes of His day.

His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
His ways are higher than our ways.
Who has known the mind of the Lord and who has been His counselor?

No one. If God determines everything, there is no justice and any accountability He would dictate is beyond foolish, and the scriptures would make no sense.

If everything is by the self-determination of man, then God is a negligent parent and impotentcreator, and the scriptures make no sense.

In order for the scriptures to make sens, as Jesus said, "The scriptures cannot be broken" and "It is written, You shall not tempt the Lord with a foolish test"- there must be something beyond what you see, or the opposition sees.

As far as married bachelors are concerned, i will defer to your expertise, either way you want to believe it

[Eaglesway]

or that blind people can see without God opening their eyes.

Everyone is blind to their ideological opponents. Only the indoctrinated see clearly in their own eyes.

NIV
Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know.

New Living Translation
Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much.

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" 9He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' 10"Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed."…

All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. 35This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: "I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD."

9 “Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?
10 For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that[a];
a little here, a little there.”
11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
12 to whom he said,
“This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
but they would not listen.
13 So then, the word of the Lord to them will become:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there—
so that as they go they will fall backward;
they will be injured and snared and captured.

The wisdom of humility always leaves some room for mystery and further enlightenment, and the answers are never given through the polar positions of the generational debates. All that has grown out of them is liturgy, orthodoxy and systematic theology, or as I like to put it "God in a box".

[[email protected]]

I hope that I admit my blindness to what I cannot see, but also lovingly testify to what I do see.

Actually in my quote

or that blind people can see without God opening their eyes.

I was returning us to the main point of this post. The will of a blind man cannot open his own eyes. Only God can do that.

[Paidion]

Right, we can't fly to the moon, either, merely by a desire to do so.

But we can make choices. And that's all free will is.

[[email protected]]

Paidon, your last post explains precisely the heart of why we cannot seem to agree. We have different understandings of the philosophical meaning of 'free will'.

If all 'free will' means is that we have the ability to make choices, then I agree we have 'free will'. But in this discussion that is not all that it means. Sure all humans have the ability to make choices, but only within the bounds of their nature, just as a piece of rotten fruit is free to be everything that a piece of rotten fruit is. However a piece of rotten fruit cannot remove its own rottenness. And neither can unregenerate man love God or another. It is only within his nature to love self. The Holy Spirit must work that change. Thankfully that is his very specialty.

But I am repeating myself, sorry about that.

[Paidion]

According to your analogy, we have no more ability to choose than a piece of rotten fruit.

When I say we have the ability to choose, I mean it just that way. If I ask you whether you want pumpkin pie or blueberry, you can choose either of them. You may say you are constituted so as to prefer blueberry, and therefore you could not have chosen pumpkin. While admitting that you have a predisposition to take the blueberry, I say nonetheless, that could have chosen to take the pumpkin.

Indeed, this is the very definition of "free will":

Having chosen to do action A, you could have chosen NOT to do A.

[qaz]

Thats the common perception. One or the other. but such a view, for me, does not satisfy the scriptures. If we base one on the scriptures, we must accept the other, but then, both cannot be true! or can they? Because if they are not both true then TOO MUCH OF SCRIPTURE IS A RIDICULOUS CONTRADICTION.

So,

I insist there is a higher paradigm, and its just too damned easy to argue around the terminus points of our finite minds, and so much satisfaction to be gained in the conflict- since all regard themselves as victors and understanders.

What you're saying to me sounds like "there is a higher paradigm, in which a square circle is possible, and married bachelors do exist."

Of course it sounds that way to you, but if you read my post again, without me listing all of them, it is clear that there are scriptures that seem to fit both views. Somewhere down the road, beyond the limited framework of the logic either side leans upon, there is perhaps, a resolution that will look like a square peg to a round hole to some. Sorta like Jesus was s suare peg to the round holes of His day.

His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
His ways are higher than our ways.
Who has known the mind of the Lord and who has been His counselor?

No one. If God determines everything, there is no justice and any accountability He would dictate is beyond foolish, and the scriptures would make no sense.

If everything is by the self-determination of man, then God is a negligent parent and impotentcreator, and the scriptures make no sense.

In order for the scriptures to make sens, as Jesus said, "The scriptures cannot be broken" and "It is written, You shall not tempt the Lord with a foolish test"- there must be something beyond what you see, or the opposition sees.

As far as married bachelors are concerned, i will defer to your expertise, either way you want to believe it

To posit that neither God makes choices for men nor do men make choices for themselves, I think you must presuppose the existence of another being that makes choices for men (Satan?). It doesn't make any sense to me that God would create a being whose purpose it was to decide what men do.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

The title of this is Universalism + Free Will = One Very Strange Bird. How about a song dedicated to strange birds?

[steve7150]

According to your analogy, we have no more ability to choose than a piece of rotten fruit.
When I say we have the ability to choose, I mean it just that way. If I ask you whether you want pumpkin pie or blueberry, you can choose either of them. You may say you are constituted so as to prefer blueberry, and therefore you could not have chosen pumpkin. While admitting that you have a predisposition to take the blueberry, I say nonetheless, that could have chosen to take the pumpkin.

Indeed, this is the very definition of "free will":




No Paidion I think it is only the definition of "a will" not necessarily a free will. Free means unencumbered and in your example the choice is encumbered as it usually is in most instances. The difference could be semantics yet it could be significant because the degree of freedom we have in our choices may correlate with the degree of responsibility and accountability we have.

[maintenanceman]

Hi everyone, just wanted to chime in here.

I actually heard Chuck Swindoll when he made this statement. I'm not a huge fan of his, but it does IMO have a little to do with what we are discussing here.

by Charles Swindoll

"The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill. It will make or break a company ... a church ... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude ... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me, and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you ... we are in charge of our Attitudes."

I have always liked this, and to some extent, try to live by it.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Let's take a station break, with another strange bird song

[Eaglesway]

To posit that neither God makes choices for men nor do men make choices for themselves, I think you must presuppose the existence of another being that makes choices for men (Satan?). It doesn't make any sense to me that God would create a being whose purpose it was to decide what men do.

What I am positing is that it is more complex and interlaced than either pole of the debate likes to acknowledge, because mystery is offensive to the carnal mind. That is why(imo) there is such division, because man, in his mind, likes to define the undefinable beyond the limits of his perception, and rarely yields, even in the face of scriptures that contradict his views.

[[email protected]]

It doesn't make any sense to me that God would create a being whose purpose it was to decide what men do.

Just to clarify your language choices do not match what I understand the Bible to say about our will and God's will. God did not make puppets. Only he is a God big enough that could make living being with minds, wills, and emotions. Human beings make choices as the Bible is clear.

Yet because he is a loving father there are some choices he makes for us out of pure loving grace that we have no choice in. For example he chose to pay for our sin, in fact against the will of Peter and against all our self-righteous wills. Our will had no part of that. He also chose to accept the sacrifice of Christ as the guarantee of the salvation of all mankind. Our will had no part of that either. That was a deal between the Father and the Son.

Now regarding our decision to be happy about this good news, we observe that a few are, while most are not. This is a decision that must be made by each individual. We observe the a few have trusted Christ, while most do not. Why? Our birth nature of self-righteousness cannot make this choice without a change by the Holy Spirit. God does not make the choice for us, but the Holy Spirit frees us from our corrupted nature, effectively influencing us to make the decision, each one at the time of his choosing.